Raynox 250

Columbusrat wrote:

Quick question: I shoot hand-held, with a 55-250 lens, Raynox 150 and built-in flash. I know different equipment and techniques could give better results, but this is what I'm happiest with (the 'communing with nature' bit is more important to me than the final result).

I'm often aiming at tiny bugs of around 2mm long. My hand isn't the steadiest, and AF can be tricky as the 'target' is so tiny (MF occasionally gives better results but is still iffy). If I used a Raynox 250, would focusing be easier as the target is bigger, or would it just amplify my wobbles as well as the bug?

Below (cropped) is what I typically get with a tiny bug (Chlorops) - just about good enough for id purposes, which is pretty much all I can hope for at this size:

The greater the magnification, the more difficult it is to hold the camera steady.

It is much easier if the camera/lens can be mounted on a tripod, and a focus rail can really make a difference.

Opting for an old, legacy, manual focus macro lens can produce incredible results. Macro shots don't need autofocus and instead are best used by moving the camera back and forth to get best focus.

Here is an example where I used an old Vivitar 90mm f2.8 macro lens with the camera/lens mounted on a focus rail. This leaf is small enough to fit on top of a nickel with nickel still showing. I set the lens to 1:1 and move the camera/lens on the focus rail to obtain focus.

I throw this out as just an example.  I see you have a Canon, and I don't know if this lens can be obtained with a Canon mount or not.  But I know that there are many manual macro lenses that fit a Canon.  I also have it's little brother, the 55mm f2.8 macro.  Both are made by Komine.   Both are incredible lenses for something that is likely 50 or more years old.

The Ultimate Vivitar 90mm F/2.8 Macro Review! – Photography Paws